[goatteatromiag]

Originally posted by PLATO
It is good to know that Bush's policy of constant pressure has been successful in limiting Iranian Nuclear Weapons persuits. This report details with "high confidence" that a nuclear weapons program was something Iran was working on. I'm glad to see I'm not the only person here thinking along similar lines.

Iran ceasing to seek a nuclear weapon seems to coincide very closely with the fall of Saddam.

Is it too much of a stretch to attribute that stoppage to the very real threat posed to Iran by the U.S. troops across their border in Iraq?

Ahmadinijhad talks a lot of **** right now because he believes America is quagmired in Iraq ( I believe otherwise, but that's for a different thread ), he wasn't talking this much **** in 2003.

I can't continue to criticize ( I was going to say "our" intelligence agencies but I really should say every intelligence agency ) enough!

It seem to me that they are changing their intelligence reports constantly as a way to cover all the bases.

Now if someone say, "Why didn't you warn us about problem X?" They can say , "We did warn you in 200x?" and their answer to earlier or later contradictary reports will inevitably be, "Oh we learned 'X' factor since then."

They are trying to have it both ways and that's just bs! How is any President; now or future; supposed to take these butt holes seriously when they can't do their jobs!

They are a bunch of incompetent hypocrits that are ultimately responsible for all the war rhetoric about Iraq from the Democrats in the 1990's and leading up to; and into; the Bush administrations decision to go to war in 2003.

They should all be replaced.

sorry about the rant, I feel better now.

[interznakinfo]

diplomacy with Iran tarts to look up

Iranian tarts

[Luisabens]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I can't believe the hypocrisy of an Israeli person of all people complaining about the possibility of Iran secretly trying to get nukes...

How many countries has the Iranian military brazenly attacked in the same manner as the Israelis for example. Over any period: Last 5 years, last 10, last 25, last 50?

Any?

Given Israel's aggressive tendencies - including threatening to attack Iran, might we not think that it is the Israelis who would be more likely to actually use nukes?

BTW Siro, have you guys finished persecuting poor old Mordechai Vanunu yet? ISRAEL is the agressor when the leaders of Iran make speaches every week about blowing Israel off the map?

[Jeffery]

In the following three years, the Admin hypes Iran's nuclear threat, and tries to tactically bomb suspected sites. And this is where the left goes a little looney, becasue there is no evidence that the Admin wants this, and it is alway follows talk of dipolmacy when mentioned. There is nothing wrong with having military action as an option.

Europe says it wanted a diplomatic solution, the admin says it wants a diplomatic solution (and always has), and it seems it worked to the extent that we know. Which is important, because these reports make it damn clear there is a lot they do not know.

One could ask the same of Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors. Yes you can. You would think Iran might have learned something.

[AntonioXYZ]

Double plus good!

[Gymnfacymoota]

Yes you can. You would think Iran might have learned something. Indeed; that you can tie America + allies down in a quagmire, embarrass it to the international community, its own citizens and, more importantly, drive a wedge between the West (apparently bent on war) and muslims worldwide.

I dare say that Saddam Hussein's strategy was highly successful and Iran's is going down a similar path. It relies on right wing gun-nuts to support jingoistic and encourage authoritarian, militaristic policies in government. In essence, it is people like you who are the true allies of Islamic fundamentalism and the pacifists and liberals who are its true enemies. It is people like you who enable America to play right into the hands of people like Bin Laden and al-Sadr.

[Clielldub]

Since people seem to be under the impression that the Admin never wanted to attack suspected Iranian nuclear sites (and that we were always allied with Oceania), here's a poll from the end of March of this year:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 23% of American voters believe it is Very Likely the U.S. will be at War with Iran within a year. Another 32% believe war is Somewhat Likely. The survey of 800 Likely Voters found that 31% said War was Not Very Likely while just 4% view War as Not at All Likely. These figures are little changed over the past couple of months.

Earlier surveys found that 75% of Americans believe Iran is likely to develop nuclear capabilities in the near future.

The current survey found that 40% believe the United States should use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Another 40% disagree and say force should not be used. Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin, favor the use of force. Democrats, by a similar margin, are opposed. Those not affiliated with either major party are fairly evenly divided. I'll repeat that. Assuming that Republicans are about as undecided as everyone else, only about a quarter of Republicans opposed military force against suspected Iranian weapons sites. I, suppose, because this is an opinion that the Admin shared. They actually are the voice of reason among the Republican base (instead of leading the charge among the crazies).

[Yifnvmzp]

This was a policy option that people were discussing. In the immediate future.

use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons

The Republican base supported that.

[orillaVar]

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse,... I wonder who gave the Bush administration the "intelligence" reports that led to this conclusion?

Do you have links?

[teentodiefows]

Yeah, so what? Just because I would use military force doesn't me I want to use that before anything else. That's a pretty dumb straw man. It completely ignores the context of the US debate, which was that large numbers of people believed that we need to bomb suspected Iranian nuclear sites in the near future. See the point that is made in the polled that I quoted in the next post.

So again, there is no evidence beyond the juvinile fantacies in your own head that the admin WANTED to bomb Iran, only that they were WILLING to if need be. If you completely ignore all the great reporting on the Iran politics inside of the Bush Admin, again notably Sy Hersh.

Junvenile? You're completely trying to rewrite history here. I look forward to the Daily Show/Colbert Report montage of the Admin selling the war. : b:



Interesting that those demanding military force be taken off the table completely did so in spite of and in total disregard of what the IAEA and previous NEIs

Because we are arguing, just like in the Iraq debate, invading Iran doesn't make since even if they were working on WMD's. It's just that the the lack of evidence for a nuclear program makes military strikes to stop WMD development a particularly dumb option.

And the IAEA has been saying to a great extent the substance of what this past NIE said.

BTW, it's notable, BTW, that Dems Pres candidates don't talk about taking the military option off the table. That simply isn't the context of the political debate for the past couple years, which is actually whether a strike in the near future is justified.

[SallyIsNice5]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
One could ask the same of Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors. That one I kinda understand. He was trying to keep the illusion up for the benefit of Iran and to keep them in check.

[StivRichardOff]

Please tell me who advocated invading Iran, ever?

Sorry, that was an unclear (I'm really tired of writing "an attack on suspected nuclear sites").

I repeat: my position is that an airstrike is really dumb policy even if they were working on WMD's (so the situation is very analagous to the run-up to the Iraq war). And the dearth of evidence of an operating weapons program makes it particularly dumb policy.


The near future, in other words not right now, or in some other words after some other circumstances have been fleshed out.

Nowhere the poll say "not right now." You're introducing caveats in the poll that clearly weren't there. It said an attack for a specific purpose (to stop Iran from getting WMD's). The Republican base heavily supported an attack on Iran. And there's a reason for that: cheerleading from the Admin and its allies.

If they had, since you thing the admin WANTS to attack Iraq (that is so ridiculous on the face of it Ramo I can't believe you persist in it) they would have already.

Iran, not Iraq.

They've tried to. They were held back by the military brass, and then Blair in two documented instances. And Congress has made a lot of noise about it. Once more, serious reporting on the politics of the Bush Admin's Iran policy by people such as Sy Hersh says that there are elements (i.e. Cheney) who have been pushing for an attack on Iran.


For your exercise in trying to prove the nonexistent bloodthirstiness of the right to work, you would have to take the poll now given what we know.

I'm talking about the Admin's motives, not the Republican base. The base was mislead by the Admin, which is my point.

That is assuming we are going to give this NIE credit, something the left failed to do with all the previous ones.

That's another dumb strawman that you can't possibly substantiate. Most people on the left accepted that Iran is probably working on nukes (including myself, though I had serious doubts); a pretty small minority doubted that consensus, and now they appear to be correct.

The IAEA says what they know about isn't threatening. What you and others so gleefully gloss over every time you reference them is the fact that they themselves say what they know about the Iranian program in its entirety isn't much.

This is a game of probabilities we're playing. Again, the evidence we've got points to a nuclear program primarily aimed at civilian uses for the past few years. The IAEA and NIE are saying the same thing here.

[kvitacencia]

I usually try not to interrupt two other posters having an argument, but can I show you guys something real quick?

You realize that's completely irrelevant to absolutely everything I've written in this thread, right?

[Jannet.K]

I don't know what to say other than that's an extraordinarily pointless post. I'd just like to point out that Ahmedinejad, in absolutely no sense of the word, is a dictator. Maybe he dictates his meal plan or his letters, but not government policy.

[violetgorman]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't know what to say other than that's an extraordinarily pointless post. I must be missing where it's written that you are the final arbiter of what is and isn't worth a point.

Reign in your ego and go drink a beer or something.

[Cengaeas]

I wonder if you've even read the summary.

[EspanaCamsInfo]

That means offering carrots while threatening the stick. That means talking to them, even if it's "backroom" stuff. It also, of course, risks a North Korea situation (new blackmail demands every few years).

-Arrian